No abstract

Knowledge regarding preventable hospital readmissions is scarce. Our aim was to compare the clinical characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) with non-PPRs. Additionally, we aimed to identify risk factors for PPRs. Our study included readmissions within 30 days after discharge from 1 of 7 hospital departments. Preventability was assessed by multidisciplinary meetings. Characteristics of the readmissions were collected and 23 risk factors were analyzed. Of the 1120 readmissions, 125 (11%) were PPRs. PPRs occurred equally among different departments (p = 0.21). 29.6% of PPRs were readmitted by a practitioner of a different medical specialty than the initial admission (IA) specialist. The PPR group had more readmissions within 7 days (PPR 54% vs. non-PPR 44%, p = 0.03). The median LOS was 1 day longer for PPRs (p = 0.16). Factors associated with PPR were higher age (p = 0.004), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.049), fewer prior hospital admissions (p = 0.004), and no outpatient visit prior to readmission (p = 0.025). This study found that PPRs can occur at any department in the hospital. There is not a single type of patient that can easily be pinpointed to be at risk of a PPR, probably due to the multifactorial nature of PPRs.

BackgroundGuidelines concerning outpatient management of patients during the coronavirus pandemic required minimized face-to-face follow-up and increased remote care. In response, we established a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) review for emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal injuries, meaning patients are reviewed ‘virtually’ the next workday by a multidisciplinary team, instead of routine referral for face-to-face fracture clinic review. Patients wait at home and are contacted afterwards to discuss treatment. Based on VFC review, patients with minor injuries are discharged, while for other patients an extensive treatment plan is documented using injury-specific care pathways. Additionally, we established an ED orthopedic trauma fast-track to reduce waiting time. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which our workflow supported adherence to national coronavirus-related guidelines and effects on ED waiting time.MethodsA closed-loop audit was performed during two 4-week periods using predefined standards: (1) all eligible ED orthopedic trauma patients are referred for VFC review; (2) reached afterwards; and follow-up is (3) patient initiated, or (4) performed remotely, whenever possible. Total ED waiting time, time to review, time for review, and time after review were assessed during both audit periods and compared with previous measurements.ResultsDuring both audits, the majority of eligible ED patients were referred for VFC review (1st: n=162 (88.0%); 2nd: n=302 (98.4%)), and reached afterwards (1st: 98.1%; 2nd: 99.0%). Of all referred patients, 17.9% and 13.6% were discharged ‘virtually’ during first and second audits, respectively, while 45.0% and 41.1% of scheduled follow-up appointments were remote. Median total ED waiting time was reduced (1st: −36 minutes (p<0.001); 2nd: −33 minutes (p<0.001)). During the second audit, median ED time to review was reduced by −13 minutes (p<0.001), as well as time for review: −10 minutes (p=0.019).DiscussionIn line with national guidelines, our VFC review allowed time-effective review and triage of the majority of ED orthopedic trauma patients, supporting patient-initiated and remote follow-up, whenever possible. ED waiting time was reduced after implementing the VFC review and orthopedic trauma fast-track.Level of evidenceIV.

Purpose In the Netherlands, patients can often choose between the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as primary bariatric surgery. Yet, patients confronted with medical options may experience decisional conflict when their stakes are high and outcomes uncertain. This study aimed to assess if a decision aid helps patients make informed choices between two bariatric procedures by lowering the level of decisional conflict. Materials and Methods This study was a single-center comparative cohort of patients who accessed a web-based decision aid (intervention group) and those who did not use the decision aid (control group) to help choose between two bariatric procedures additional to the standard provided care. The primary outcome was the level of decisional conflict in these patients using the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the provided information (BODY-QTM—satisfaction with information), preference of involvement in procedure selection, level of shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 questionnaire), and patient knowledge. Results The level of decisional conflict assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS) showed a significantly lower mean total DCS of 25.5 ± 11.5 for the intervention group vs. 29.1 ± 12.4 in the control group ( p = 0.022). Both groups did not significantly differ in satisfaction regarding provided information, involvement in the selection procedure, shared decision-making, and patient knowledge. Conclusion The results suggest that the additional use of a decision aid significantly lowers the level of decisional conflict in patients awaiting bariatric surgery. However, the added value should be further investigated. Graphical Abstract